Data encryption methods provide privacy of the encrypted information over insecure communication channels. Encryption methods alone, however, lack manipulation detection abilities to ensure the integrity or authenticity of the information. Data authentication methods are required to detect when the received message was altered by an adversary during communication.
□Many known algorithms provide authentication separate from the privacy. One of the most well known methods for providing data authentication generates an authentication tag or Message Authentication Code (MAC) through the use of a key dependent one-way hash function. A one-way hash function is designed such that it is comparatively easy to compute but almost impossible to reverse. Because the length of the authentication tag is usually fixed and shorter than the length of the initial message, the authentication tag cannot ensure a one-to-one mapping of messages to authentication tags. The length of the authentication tag, however, is designed to be long enough to thwart brute force attacks.
In the method for exchanging a message with an authentication tag, the sender initiates the exchange by generating an authentication tag from the authentic □message using a shared key. The sender then transfers the message and authentication tag to the receiver. At the receiving end, the receiver must generate an authentication tag from the received message using the shared key as well. The receiver then compares his or her generated authentication tag with the received authentication tag. If the two tags match, then the receiver can be assured that the message has not been modified during transmission and that it was sent by someone who knows the secret key.
The use of an authentication tag or MAC consumes time on the receiving end, because it requires the receiver to generate a MAC for comparison. When combined with a data encryption method, the receiver must decrypt the message and generate an authentication tag before the received information can be used. This conventional approach requires two passes over the same message on both the sending and receiving end often with the same basic algorithm. Furthermore, this conventional approach often requires the use of separate keys for each function. The use of two separate functions uses excessive processing power, memory, and time.
In applications focused on minimizing latency such as Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) networks, Remote Frequency Identification (RFID), and other real-time data exchange systems, received information must be used immediately making it impossible to use a separate MAC for data authentication. The devices used in such applications present further restrictions on processing power, code space, and memory. These applications highlight the need for methods that provide message integrity integrated with strong cryptographic privacy to minimize the latency and overhead imposed by separate conventional methods.
In response to the disadvantages of the conventional approaches, various methods have been suggested. Based on a new proof in error detection, the SCADA community including the AGA12 committee suggested assured error-propagation as a means for providing integrity without the need for a traditional MAC. Various methods exist that include error-propagation to provide some level of integrity. Depending on the level of error-propagation, a one-bit modification to the transmitted ciphertext results in some amount of randomization of subsequent bits in order to provide enhanced manipulation detection. One such method, Propagating Cipher Block Chaining (PCBC) was designed to fully propagate a one-bit modification to all subsequent bits. Since its □design, however, PCBC mode has been found to be vulnerable to some straight-forward attacks. For example, switching two ciphertext blocks leaves the rest of the message unchanged.
Andrew Wright et al. recently proposed another solution, AES PE-mode for use in SCADA networks that was designed based on the error detection proof to assure at least six bits of randomization following a one-bit manipulation (viz., A. K. Wright, J. A. Kinast, and J. McCarty. Low-Latency Cryptographic Protection for SCADA Communications. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Applied Cryptography and Network Security, ACNS 2004). While PE-mode lacks the straight-forward vulnerabilities of PCBC, PE-mode imposes a great deal of latency and overhead, because it is essentially a cascade cipher of two AES encryption modes. In addition to encrypting the message twice, PE-mode is designed to be used with a separate message authentication algorithm such as a CBC-MAC. The drawbacks of PCBC and PE-mode illuminate the need for an error-propagating encryption algorithm that is both fast and small and does not require further steps to achieve integrity.